Does the first amendment also protect so called hate speech?

28 Answers

The first amendment protects speech from being regulated by the government. A private person or entity is allowed to impose whatever regulations they want.

Milton 08/10/2018 at 01:04.

HuffPost is still online so probably,

Anonymous 08/10/2018 at 00:46.

Let’s find out. Go into a resturaunt and scream, “n!gger” all night long. See how protected you feel.

Les Than Spam 08/10/2018 at 00:46.

"hate speech" might be protected, but what does it constitute?

it implicitly indicates that one hates whoever one is addressing, and the language is strong enough to make that clear

do you want to exercise your freedom of speech in such a manner . . . that is your right . . . please take FULL responsibility

Anonymous 08/10/2018 at 00:46.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -Noam Chomsky﻿

PoohBearPenguin 08/10/2018 at 00:36.

Limited protection.

Yahoo's Most Wanted 08/10/2018 at 00:34.

Not if it endangers other people, infringing on their rights. It's not so clear cut.

Taylor b 08/10/2018 at 00:27.

Yes the first amendment does, hate speech is free speech.

davidmi711 08/10/2018 at 00:25.

Yes. The supreme court even said so.

Inmate 0bama 08/10/2018 at 00:48.

It does. Nice speech doesn't need to be protected.

tigeress 08/10/2018 at 00:42.

Up to a point. Threats of bodily harm, death threats, defamation, and slander are illegal. There are laws against that. The legal term is "Fighting Words" the very utterance inflict injury or words that tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace are not protected by the First Amendment".

Those threats are not protected by doctor-patient privilege either. Psychologists, therapists, and social workers have a "duty to warn" code of ethics. We have a duty to warn potential victims of the threats against them. It is usually a family member or former wife or girlfriend who are already aware, but this gives them proof to obtain an order of protection.

Professor 08/10/2018 at 00:35.

The Supreme Court said so, so yes.

Mike W 08/10/2018 at 00:34.

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no objective legal definition of hate speech.

NIX 08/10/2018 at 00:34.

There is a difference between your freedom to say what you want on a street corner vs on youtube.

Remember Trump saying stuff about taking people out on a stretcher and he'd paid the legal fees?

Or that Hillary's bodyguards shouldn't carry guns?

Or that 2nd amendment people should do something about her?

He's definitely guilty of violating this one,

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others

sandplant16 08/10/2018 at 00:31.

Yes, but it is not required for a private media company to print it or for us to listen to it. If the hate speech is a part of inciting a riot, however, it is a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 2102.

So you can say you hate something as much as you want, but if you encourage violence, it is a crime. Like when Trump said go ahead and smack them in the mouth, I'll pay your legal bills. He was very close to being guilty under that code when he said that.

Anonymous 08/10/2018 at 00:31.

No, apparently not.

Mica 08/10/2018 at 00:30.

Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Antiliber 08/10/2018 at 00:29.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

Anonymous 08/10/2018 at 00:27.

No. Nor does it protect against libel or defamation. Alex Jones is being sued for libel and defamation and he will be punished if he loses.

Daro 08/10/2018 at 00:55.

....from Congress, yes.

Doesnt apply to state or local governments or private entities, of course.

It was put in there to prevent central government from controlling all information and thus controlling the peoples ability to learn.

Donald Trump, Lord & Savior 08/10/2018 at 00:52.

cvofefe

Gypsyfish 08/10/2018 at 00:38.

If it didn't, Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh would be behind bars. Conservatives don't understand the difference between an amendment protecting people from criminal prosecution, and the rights of private enterprises, or the natural consequences of nasty behavior.

mayo_carl 08/10/2018 at 00:35.

absolutely.

'hate speech' is a made-up term created by liberals to censor anything they consider 'hate'.

Raisin Caine 08/10/2018 at 00:33.

YES!!! And it should. There is no definition of hate speech. It is a VERY subjective idea posited by hypocrites.

And what do I mean by hypocrites???

Let's review.

According to these hypocrites:

Black people can say the n-word, but no one else can. OK. MAYBE I can deal with this. BUT if I get in trouble for directly quoting and attributing a quote to someone who used the n-word, .... OR saying the words that these words are offensive and should not be used and giving the list of offensive words??? OK. Now you have gone insane. BUT, I can generally let this one slide, PROVIDED that it applies to insulting or talking about your own race and is applied equitably.

BUT.... calling people crackers is not racist. WTH???

And saying anything negative about women is sexist, BUT saying anything negative about men is fine.

And saying anything negative about Islam is Islamophobic, BUT saying anything negative about Christianity is perfectly fine and indeed encouraged.

Letting people this absurdly biased make laws dealing with what speech we can or cannot say ILLUSTRATES exactly why there should be ALMOST no limitation to free speech, with the one exception of a call to violence. And even the exception of a call to violence is limited. I can say here that people should beat you up, but no reasonable person would think that it would lead to you being beat up. You need the reasonable assumption that the call to violence will actually lead to violence.